Tuesday, October 09, 2007

The noted blogger Fjordman is filing this report via Gates of Vienna.For a complete Fjordman blogography, see The Fjordman Files. There is also a multi-index listing here.

Imagine if you planned a country’s economic future using calculations exclusively based on even numbers. For ideological reasons you excluded odd numbers because you declared that they represent bigotry and have divisive nature since they cannot be divided equally in half. Absolutely all calculations for the future would then end up being wrong. This sounds insane and improbable, but what we’re doing now in the Western world is exactly this naïve. In the name of Multiculturalism we completely ignore all ethnic, religious, cultural and, yes, racial differences, because we have decided that these things don’t matter. But in real life, ethnicity, culture, religion and race do matter. Doesn’t that mean that all our projections for the future by necessity will end up being wrong, since they fail to take important factors into account?

Policy needs to be rooted in a realistic assessment of human nature, not in wishful thinking. Good intentions are far from sufficient to ensure good results. History is full of well-intended policies gone horrible wrong. We know from past experience that basing an ideological world view on a fundamentally flawed understanding of human nature is bound to end in disaster. Society will become more and more totalitarian in order to suppress all the information that doesn’t conform to the official ideology. Isn’t this what is happening in the West now?

I used to believe until quite recently that skin color was irrelevant. I was brought up that way. I still don’t think ethnicity or race does or should mean everything. In fact, I would say it is patently uncivilized to claim that it means everything. But I can no longer say with a straight face that it means absolutely nothing, and if it means more than nothing, it needs to be taken into account. Whether we like this or not is immaterial.

Numerous studies have demonstrated that people tend to prefer their own ethnic group above others. An international poll in 2007 showed that 90 percent of the inhabitants in Egypt, Indonesia and India believed that each country should guard their innate culture and lifestyle. Immigration concerned people in 44 out of the 47 countries.

Guarding your identity is thus a universal human trait, not a white trait. In fact, it is less pronounced among whites today than among anybody else. Only whites cling onto the idea of universalism, everybody else sticks with their own ethnic group. In white majority Western nations it has become a state-sponsored ideology to “celebrate diversity,” despite the fact that all available evidence indicates that more diversity leads to more conflict.

In May 2007, Osama bin Laden’s deputy terrorist leader Ayman al-Zawahri stated that “Al-Qaida is not merely for the benefit of Muslims. That’s why I want blacks in America, people of color, American Indians, Hispanics, and all the weak and oppressed in North and South America, in Africa and Asia, and all over the world.”

Read that statement closely. This Jihadist organization is calling for a global war against whites. Not Christians or Jews. Whites. I have been told all of my life that skin color is irrelevant, but this balancing act gets a lot more difficult when somebody declares war against you because of your race.

According to the columnist Leo McKinstry, the British government has declared war on white English people:

In the name of cultural diversity, Labour attacks anything that smacks of Englishness. The mainstream public are treated with contempt, their rights ignored, their history trashed. In their own land, the English are being turned into second-class citizens.

Keith Best, head of the Immigration Advisory Service, stated that immigrants are “better citizens” than native Britons. Matthew Elliott of the Taxpayers’ Alliance pressure group was shocked and replied that “Taxpayers shouldn’t be funding an outfit that describes them as being second-rate citizens.” But apparently, now they do.

DNA studies have proved that a significant majority of those who live in the British Isles today are descended directly from the Ice Age hunters, despite the Roman, Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Norman invasions. This accounts for 88% of the Irish, 81% of the Welsh, 70% of the Scots and 68% of the English.

The UK Commission for Racial Equality in 1996 claimed that “everyone who lives in Britain today is either an immigrant or the descendant of an immigrant.” But if everybody is an immigrant, how come people of European stock in the Americas and Australia are still viewed as alien elements by some, even though many of them have lived there for centuries? As Professor David Conway demonstrates in his book A Nation Of Immigrants?, after the invasion led by William the Conqueror in 1066, the total number of Norman settlers in Britain was never more than five per cent of the population. The inflow now is 25 times any previous level and frequently from totally alien cultures, not from neighboring territories and cultural cousins as previously.

I’m sure the English are told that this is a result of colonialism, but there are no Britons left in Pakistan, so why should there be Pakistanis in Britain? The Germans had a colony in Namibia. Why should they accept millions of Turks, who have a thousand years of extremely brutal colonial history of their own, because of this? There are not many Dutch people left in Indonesia, so why should the Dutch be rendered a minority in their major cities by Moroccans and others? And why should European countries such as Portugal, Spain and Greece, which have all suffered from centuries of Islamic colonization, have to accept Muslims into their lands? Switzerland, Sweden, Finland and Norway hardly have any colonial history at all, yet are still subject to mass immigration. The truth is that immigration policies bear little correlation to past colonialist history, population density or size. Ireland, Denmark, Britain, France, Sweden, Italy, Germany and the Netherlands have one, and only one, thing in common: The natives are white, and thereby have no legitimate claim to their own countries.

As Professor Ida Magli writes in an Italian essay entitled A Nation for Sale: “Why can’t we protest? Why aren’t we allowed what every people has always had the right to say, that is that no ruler, whatever the system of government — monarchy, dictatorship, democracy — has either the power or the right to sell off the homeland of their own subjects?”

The columnist Kevin Myers in Ireland thinks that no country has ever accepted, never mind assimilated, the volumes of immigrants now present in his country:- - - - - - - - -

Why the presumption that an Asian Muslim who lives in Ireland is in any way Irish? My mother lived most of her life in England, but never for a second thought of herself as English. The media should be asking the big question, ‘Why are we still admitting hundreds of thousands of immigrants?’ Instead, we are obsessing with the relatively trivial question of: Are the Irish people, who after all have admitted vast armies of strangers to their national home, racist? This is self-hatred at its most pathetic, and its most self-defeating.

Rune Gerhardsen of the Labor Party in Oslo, the son of Norway’s longest-serving Prime Minister in history, states that “When I went to school we were taught about the Great Migrations. Today’s migrations are just as big. This is part of an international trend we neither can nor want to stop. I think this development is first and foremost exciting and positive.” He likes to say that we have lived for 10,000 years without anybody visiting us. Now we’ve had a massive change within an extremely brief historical period of time.

I will give Gerhardsen credit for frankly admitting that this is by far the greatest demographic change in our nation’s history since the end of the last Ice Age. The problem is, this change, which has already made the country a lot less safe than it was only a generation ago, has been conducted without real debate, solely with propaganda and censorship. And I’m not so sure all of these groups have come merely to “visit” us. Some of them are here to colonize and subdue us, and readily admit this if you care to listen to them.

According to the writer Kent Andersen, the greatest social experiment the population has ever been subject to was never decided democratically. The native majority were never allowed to have a say about whether they wanted to change the country forever. In his view, you don’t get mass immigration for decades unless somebody with power allows this and desires it.

During the Multicultural craze of the 1990s, novelist Torgrim Eggen in an essay entitled “The psychotic racism” warned against “race wars in the streets” as a result of mass immigration. The solution to this was not to limit immigration, but to limit criticism of immigration. According to Eggen, xenophobia and opposition to mass immigration should be viewed as a mental illness, and hence “the solution to this xenophobia is that you should distribute medication to those who are seriously affected. I have discussed this with professor of community medicine, Dr. Per Fugelli, and he liked the idea.” Mr Fugelli suggested putting anti psychotic drugs in the city’s drinking water.

This may sound too extreme to be meant seriously, but Mr. Fugelli has continued to publicly chastise those who are critical of national immigration policies. Eggen warned that arguments about how ordinary people are concerned over mass immigration shouldn’t be accepted because this could lead to Fascism: “One should be on one’s guard against people, especially politicians, who invoke xenophobia on behalf of others. And if certain people start their reasoning with phrases such as ‘ordinary people feel that,’ one shouldn’t argue at all, one should hit [them].”

Repeated violence committed by non-white immigrants against whites is dismissed because they come from “weak groups.” But whites are a weak group. We are a rapidly shrinking global minority, and Nordic-looking Scandinavians are a minority of a minority. Ethnologist Maria Bäckman in her study “Whiteness and gender” followed a group of Swedish girls in the immigrant-dominated suburb of Rinkeby outside Stockholm. Several of the native girls stated that they had dyed their hair to avoid harassment and being called “whore.” We thus already now have a situation where being blond in certain areas of Sweden, not just in Pakistan or Egypt, makes you a target of harassment and aggression.

In my country, the Equality and Anti-Discrimination Ombud from 2006 made Multiculturalism and total non-discrimination into an official state ideology. If a Muslim immigrant claims that a native has somehow discriminated against him, the native non-Muslim has to mount proof of his own innocence. I have later discovered that similar laws have been passed across much of Western Europe, encouraged by the European Union.

Native Europeans are being told that we don’t have a history and a culture, and that we thus “gain” a culture when others move to our countries. This is an insult to thousands of years of European history, to the Celtic, Germanic, Slavic and cultures and the Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian heritage all Westerners share in. The funny part is, the next second we are told that we do have a culture, but it consists of nothing but a long line of crimes and is thus nothing to preserve, anyway.

My nation doesn’t even have a colonial history. It gained its independence as late as the twentieth century, at which point it was a poor country, yet because I am white, I am to be held personally responsible for every bad act, perceived or real, committed by every person who happens to have roughly similar skin color throughout history. American novelist Susan Sontag even stated that “The white race is the cancer of human history.” I am told that I am evil specifically because of my race, and five minutes later I’m told that race doesn’t matter.

I do not hold Abdullah who sells kebab down on the corner personally responsible for sacking Constantinople, abducting millions of Europeans to slavery, colonizing the Iberian Peninsula, ruining the Balkans or threatening Vienna several times. I criticize Islam because Muslims have never admitted their past and will continue to commit atrocities as long as the institution of Jihad is alive. I do not believe in collective responsibility, and I do not think a person should be held responsible for actions made by his ancestors centuries ago.

On the other hand, if I am to take the blame, personally, for every bad act, perceived or real, committed by any white person in the past, it is only fair that I, personally, should also take credit for their achievements. It was peoples of European stock who created the modern world, not anybody else. If I am to be held personally responsible for colonialism, I want personal credit for being a part of the one civilization that has taken the greatest strides for mankind of any civilization that has ever existed on this planet. I’m done with apologizing for my existence for the nameless crime of being born white.

After decades of inundation about the evils of ‘white racism’ coming from all directions, and most especially from the media and education establishments, the average white is programmed to avoid anything that smacks of conscious endorsement of his own race. In the current social climate, to display favorable regard towards that which is white, not only is forbidden, but is viewed as an automatic disparagement of non-whites. A ‘White Pride’ T-shirt is deemed a threatening symbol, whereas a ‘Black Supremacy’ slogan on a button or garment is viewed as an understandable, albeit angry response to undeserved past abuses. Any public effort to promote a white theme is doomed to failure, even if the proper bows to racial diversity are adhered to. Whites learn early to censor themselves.

I’ve been told by Americans that they have moved beyond race, but judging from examples such as this, it looks more as if they have established a culture of institutionalized white masochism. It’s not that Americans have moved beyond race, it’s just that the whites have unilaterally surrendered. The United States was almost 90% white as late as 1965, and will be minority white within a couple of generations. I don’t know of any example where the formerly dominant group has become a minority and this has not resulted in a complete change of the nature of that country, or to its dissolution, but in the USA, this entire subject is taboo because it is “racist.” That’s not rational.

I have listened to claims regarding the supposed benefits of mass immigration, why it is inevitable and why those who resist are bad people. The propaganda is remarkably similar from the Netherlands via Britain to Sweden and Italy, and that’s not a coincidence. This is all happening as a coordinated and well-planned assault on established national cultures, organized by the European Union and supported by the national political and media elites.

It has happened many times that a people move into an area and subdue those living there, but the natives have at least been allowed to defend themselves. It is unprecedented in the annals of history that a people is banned by their own leaders from defending their lands from foreign colonization and are even expected to fund this colonization. It is one of the greatest crimes of our age that the indigenous people of an entire continent, at least the Western half of it, are systematically deprived of their heritage, their history, their land and ultimately perhaps their entire physical existence, all with the active aid of the very individuals who are supposed to protect their interests. The only reason why this is considered positive, or even remotely acceptable, is because the natives in this case are white. There is no other reason for this.

In Glasgow, Scotland, Kriss Donald, a 15-year-old totally innocent white schoolboy was abducted, stabbed repeatedly and then doused in petrol and burned to death by a group of Pakistani immigrants. Labour politician Mohammad Sarwar, who helped in bringing some of the men to justice, later became the first elected representative in Britain to step down due to threats against his family.

The established historical pattern is that people who are conquered by others are harassed by the newcomers. I don’t see any reason to expect this to be different just because the natives happen to be white. On the contrary. We will be attacked even more viciously because we are a formerly dominant group. When we are told that mass immigration is “inevitable,” we are actually being told that verbal and physical abuse of out children is inevitable and that we should “get used to it.” I see no reason to accept that. If mass immigration leads to harassment of my children, it is my duty to resist it.

Jews were once told to “get back to Palestine.” When they did, they were told to “get out of Palestine.” The people who said this didn’t object to where Jews lived, they objected to the fact that they existed at all. I sometimes wonder whether whites of European descent, a global minority, are the Jews of the 21st century. I also notice that while people of European descent are told to “get back to Europe” in North America or Australia, whites in Europe are demonized if they resist being turned into a minority in their own countries. The problem then, apparently, isn’t where whites live, it’s that we exist at all.

Observer Ole Kulterstad notes that Europeans who are against free migration are labeled as “right-wing extremists.” But common sense indicates that giving away your country to alien cultures is more extreme than merely wanting to preserve it as it once was. I agree with him. I’m sick of hearing how Islamic organizations that want to destroy my civilization are called “moderates,” whereas Westerners are extremists if we resist, yet that is exactly what our media and our authorities do. We are not extremists; we are subject to policies that are extreme. Is gradually reducing a people to a minority in their own land, without proper debate about future consequences, not to be regarded as extreme?

I hear some writers fear an extremist backlash in Europe, but if people are so concerned about white extremism then they should cease creating the foundations for such extremism to grow. Native Europeans increasingly get the feeling that they are pushed into a corner and have an entirely justifiable fear of being overwhelmed. Fear leads to desperation, and desperation sometimes leads to aggression. If we do get an outbreak of political movements in Europe that really are extremist — and I sometimes fear this outcome, too — this will not come about because white Europeans are born evil, it will come about because white Europeans will be pushed into extremism, feel that their continued existence is at stake and that they have been abandoned by their own authorities. The solution to this is simply to recognize that Western nations have accepted more immigration from alien cultures in a shorter period of time than any other civilization has done peacefully in history. We have reached our limits and we need a break from mass immigration before our entire political and economic system breaks down.

The idea that every white person who desires self-determination and self-preservation is a racist, a white supremacist and a Nazi is nonsense and should flatly be rejected. The vast majority of racist violence in Western nations is by non-whites attacking whites. Consequently, if we limit immigration this is anti-racism, since we are protecting our children against racist violence. It is not about white supremacy, either, it is about equality. Whites are currently the only racial group specifically denied the opportunity to defend their countries and heritage. If we assert our right to do so we are thus fighting for equality, not supremacy.

The “Nazi” accusations so carelessly thrown out these days are completely baseless in this context. The Nazis believed that whites, and blondes in particular, had the right to colonize or eradicate others. But the policy we follow today could be dubbed reversed Nazism since it is based on the assumption that whites should have fewer rights than others and can be colonized or culturally eradicated with impunity. I don’t see why I should either be a “Nazi” or embrace and celebrate my extinction. It’s a false choice.

I suspect future historians will call this era the Age of White Masochism. The white man conquered the world and then suffered a nervous breakdown, a kind of collective neurosis shared by an entire civilization. However, I sense that this era is slowly coming to an end.

I would use two arguments as to why the current mass immigration the West should be halted:

1.

Whites, too, have a right to exist. The primary duty you have as a human being is to preserve the heritage of your ancestors and pass on to your children a country they can call their own and where they can live in dignity.

2.

The ongoing immigration is population dumping where less successful cultures dump their population in more successful ones. This is a form of global Communism and will generate the same effects by destroying successful communities and centers of excellence.

I believe whites in the 21st century should desire a room of our own where we can prosper, live in a major Western city without having to fear violence because of our race, and without being stripped of our heritage in order to placate people who moved to our countries out of their own free will. We have the right to preserve our heritage and are under no obligation to commit collective suicide or serve as a dumping ground for other countries. It has nothing to do with animosity towards others. For my part, I am being entirely honest if I say that I still love visiting other cultures, but I will love this even more if I know I can also return to my own.

"Repeated violence committed by non-white immigrants against whites is dismissed because they come from “weak groups.” But whites are a weak group."

I read an article today on "Prison Rape in the US" and the author speaks in the same tones in the above quote. White males are the largest victims of rape and gang rape in the prison system. Almost exclusively at the hands of blacks and hispanics. While there are several reasons for this one is that the whites as a "group" are weak. The blacks and hispanics would never allow white on black rape. There would be virtual prison riots. Why? Because when push comes to shove there is a solidarity within the black and hispanic inmate population. Call it what you will. Racial or cultural. None the less it exsists. Here is a quote from said article:

"The racial dynamic in prisons puts whites at a tremendous disadvantage. First, whites are often outnumbered by both blacks and Hispanics. But far more important, just as they show no racial solidarity in “the free world,” whites in prison do not band together to protect each other from predators. As No Escape reports(a report from human rights watch), Hispanics sometimes rape Hispanics, and blacks sometimes rape blacks, but neither group permits anyone of another race to rape its own people. If a black tried to “turn out” a Mexican, the Mexicans would riot and try to kill him. Blacks also defend each other from white or Hispanic rapists. It is only whites—unless they are known members of white racialist gangs who do stick together—who are on their own and can be raped with impunity. It would be hard to think of a more cruel consequence of stripping whites of racial consciousness.I agree with this last statement, of course, but I'm not sure it makes sense to say that racial consciousness was "stripped" from whites. I think it's something that just happened as we went through the various stages of "modernity," as they call it - first democracy in the 18th century, then romanticism in the 19th, then individualism in the 20th. White men can't feel racial solidarity any more than we can wear powdered wigs."

I realize this is slightly off-topic but I thought it was almost a "canary in a coal mine" sketch of Fjordmans quote.

Although I am highly skeptical when people speak of the age they live in as apocalyptic, the unanimity with which all the elites in every major western nation are acting in opposition to their own people marks this age as, at the very least, terribly troubled. I don't pretend to understand the reason the elites hate (not too strong a word) the lower orders of their own race. Will constitutional democracies be capable of correcting this situation as it begins to impact the majority white population even more severely than is presently the case? I doubt it. My guess is that we will soon be entering a period when the white population of many western nations will turn toward men on white horses as their only possible salvation. Some of these men will be charlatans, some the genuine article. But will it be too late? Is it too late now? I don't pretend to know.

A few quibbles, if I may, from a Huntingtonian (i.e. one who views culture, rather than class or race for example, as the focal point of the current conflict).

Fjordman writes: "But I can no longer say with a straight face that it [race] means absolutely nothing, and if it means more than nothing, its needs to be taken into account. Whether we like this or not is immaterial."

I agree with that, but only in the strict sense. If many people believed in the existence and real influence of leprechauns, and made their policies according to that belief, then it would be equally fitting to say leprechauns have a meaning--a virtual existence because of the belief in their influence. But it would not mean they actually exist. In like manner, racial ideas are only relevant in so far as so many people believe them to have significance. And in that regard, the "anti-racist" Left is by far the worst offender.

Race is about inborn traits, therefore explains nothing beyond them. When talking about people's (sane people's) behaviors, we pass from nature into nurture, meaning that race is now irrelevant, and culture is the lens through which it is better to look in order to make sense of things.

Fjordman writes: "Read that statement [by al-Zawahri] closely. This Jihadist organization is calling for a global war against whites. Not Christians or Jews. Whites."

I tend not to take public statements by jihadists at face value. As Bin Laden's most recent video, heavily laced with its Marxist language, shows, a great many of those messages are for Western Leftist consumption, geared to sowing discord in our ranks. For the first few years after 9/11, Bin Laden repeatedly said US support of Israel was the reason for Al Qaedah's attacks, and then suddenly, in one video, he changed the message and said the reason was Bosnia. It all depends on the expediency of the moment.

I read al-Zawahri's race-exclusionary statement as an astute framing of the jihad as part of the anti-colonial struggle. He does not care about sticking it to the whites any more than he cares about Arab Muslims slaughtering black Muslims in Darfur. If there is racism in al-Zawahri's type, it is, invariably, Arab supremacism. The anti-white message is nothing but a nod to our "reverse"-racist Left.

Now I wish to say something about the issue of preservation of identity, and curbing immigration. The trouble here is that there are two distinct (if related) issues that muddy the waters:

1. The threat of Islamic supremacism.

2. The dilution, or outright demise, of the concept that immigration is a privilege and conditional.

They are related in that the New Left aids and abets both, but they are not the same. The Islamic threat is absolute, without any possibility of compromise: the Muslims immigrate with the explicit purpose of turning the host country into an Islamic one; or, if not with that purpose when they immigrate, they discover it later (the so-called "radicalization" the media talks about). Cultural deference to their host countries has never been on the agenda. Therefore Muslim immigration must be halted completely as a first step.

The second issue is demonstrated by the situation on the US-Mexico border. Aside from the issue of illegal entry, the immigrants display no intention to defer to the culture of the host state. The USA once used to insist immigrants learn to speak English; this has naturally been thrown over the water by the PC brigades. I insist on arguing that all non-Muslim immigrants could make good citizens of their host countries in potentia, but fail to do so because the PC regime has done away with all pressures to do so. While the Muslims get their brazen sense of entitlement to everything as a result of the doctrines of their religion, non-Muslim immigrants get a sense of entitlement only because the PC regime spoils them, encourages them to be that way. To reverse this situation, it is not necessary to halt all immigration; but the old-time demand that immigrants make an effort to integrate to their host state needs to be reinstated and enforced. This would, by its very nature, cut down on the rate of immigration, for immigration would then lose its appeal for all but those who are serious about it--sincerely interested in becoming part of their host culture.

I will be frank about my basic problem with the race-based view: according to it, a black immigrant in Europe cannot partake of "the Celtic, Germanic, Slavic cultures" for the sole reason that there are no Celts, Germans or Slavs in his ancestry; this no matter how hard an effort he makes to learn those cultures and how sincere he is in his wish to be part of his host culture. This is the basis Leftists use for tarring Western preservationists with the Stormfront brush. Most probably my view is colored by my own identity here (the Jewish nation is an ethnicity that spans multiple races, i.e. skin colors), but I simply can't accept race (nature) as a barrier to integration into a culture (nurture). I oppose the Muslims because they want to assimilate all the non-Muslim world to their culture, and I oppose the unrestricted, demand-free immigration policies of today's West because they are detrimental to all host cultures. Race, in my view, has nothing to do with it. As I said, I pay attention to race only because the treasonous Leftists make such heavy weather of it.

Excellent essay Fjordman and you touched on a very important point when you said:

"I also notice that while people of European descent are told to “get back to Europe” in North America or Australia, whites in Europe are demonized if they resist being turned into a minority in their own countries."

Not only are white Europeans in Australia considered to be decendants of convicts,criminals and invaders, we are also told that only the Australian Aborigine has the legitimate right to oppose immigration. But if that is true, why do the indigenous people of Europe not have that same right?.

Yet it was the white European who built a large modern industrial civizilation in Australia, still they want to ignore that and make every white child somehow personally responsible for the "sins" of their colonial forefathers.

One cannot deny that the Australian Aborigine is still reeling from the effect of colonisation some 200 years later, yet the very same policies of immigration and multiculturalism will lead to the eventual extinction of their race as it must for the European Australians under the unrelenting march of Asianisation.

I'm called a racist for suggesting that Australia should remain populated by predominately people of European descent, not a "white" Australia as we are mindful of our Aborigine community.

It is important for people like us to take to the fight, if we fail, we will have extremists becoming more prominent, for example the KKK have started popping up in various locations in Australia, same with neo-nazi groups. Both of which would be at least as bad as having the Muslims run the joint - all must be opposed.

People voted for Hitler because they believed he would save Germany, people voted for Milosovic for the same reason, yet both led their people, in varying degrees, to their destruction. In fact, nobody has done more harm to European racial sovereignty than Hitler, it was because of him that the whole debate on race was subsumed by the left.

It's not about hate or notions of superiority, its about acknowledging difference, enjoying those differences, but understanding those differences are important and when you do, you realise just how evil the ideology of multiculturalism is - it literally means European genocide! As you suggested Fjordman, you can travel to enjoy diversity and be able to come home to your own - multiculturalism is the very antithesis of diversity, it is the destruction of human uniqueness.

As a Christian I believe we are all equal before God, in the same way we are all (supposed to be) equal before the law. Forced racial equality will end in disaster, misery and as Enoch Powell suggested, rivers of blood.

The main points we all need to acknowledge about humans and human nature are:

-Different human populations have different, (at least partially) innate traits.-Different human populations have different strengths and different weaknesses.-People are more likely to be altruistic toward those people with whom they share genes (e.g. family members).-The members of human populations that practice inbreeding (e.g. institutionalized cousin marriage) will be more altruistic toward those people with whom they share genes than will the members of human populations that do not practice inbreeding. Conversely, they will also be less likely to be altruistic toward non-related individuals.

I actually believe that these latter two points are, at the moment, much more critical to the immigration crisis that Europeans are experiencing today and to the struggle that the West faces with the Muslim world. It is primarily the Muslim the world that practices institutionalized cousin-marriage and because of this they are extremely hostile to outsiders. They are hostile to one another within their own societies, let alone to peoples in other populations! Roger Ballard has done much research showing how immigrant groups who practice cousin-marriage do not integrate well. Read more on his research on the differences between Sikh (non-cousin marrying and fairly well integrated) versus Muslim (cousin marrying and not well integrated) immigration to Britain here.

Great essay, and finally Fjordman came to some generalisations. So, it is white people who are under attack, because they have a neurosis. Well, but what is the reason, why it started recently throughout all the civilized world? Our time is characterised by many unprecedented conditions: unprecedented levels of democracy, welfare, arms race, technology, globalization, atheism, unprecedented growth of population in the 3rd world e.t.c. What is the reason, or there are several reasons causing a commulative effect? According to Freud, neurosis is the suppressed perversion, the perversion that a person is trying to forget and push into unconscious. What is the perversion that we are trying to suppress in ourselves?

Robert Putnam of Harvard found that racial diversity decreased public trust and participation. People hunker down like turtles. This applies even among non-whites. For examples racial diversity decreased trust among say, Mexican-Americans or Nisei. Let alone Anglos.

So diversity = decreased trust in EVERYTHING, particularly public institutions, and willingness to sacrifice for the public good.

Also, it's easy to see why elites want to replace the population. They see a profound threat from upwardly mobile whites and seek to block it.

According to Freud, at neurosis the person regress to infantile feelings, among which are the desire to disgrace his mother and kill his father. Who are the parents of the West? Chrisianity was born as the result of fertilisation of the Roman Empire by Jewish religion. So my guess is that the mother is the Roman Church and the father is the Jewish people. Is the neurosis caused by atheism and the Holocost? Are the EU and multiculturalism the neurotic compensations - EU substitutes for Roman empire and immigranst substitute for Jews. As in each neurosis, the substitution is controversial - EU is atheistic and immigranst are antisemitic, therefore this substitution never works.

The greatest problem is the theory that the Holocost was racially motivated. I bet it was ideologically motivated, but Hitler justified it using racial arguments, which was probably the lie. However, as the result of that, racism is now equated to the murder of the father, and completely unaxceptable.

YPP I think you are wrong. The ideology of National Socialism was precisely Darwinian and racial (how can one separate their racist ideology from ideology per se?).

National Socialism has best been described as "reactionary moderism"..it had all the modern features of futurism and socialism allied to the reactionary nature of racial purity and racial "innate" superiority.

Here's what I think. Humans are not made up of multiple species. We are all the same genetically. So the massive differences in the way different groups think must be cultural. I believe you could take a newborn muslim and turn him into a orthodox rabbi, or take a white newborn and turn him into a radical imam. Or take a newbirn from the jungle in Africa and turn him into a heart surgeon. I simply don't buy the "nature" argument to explain differences. So, for me it comes down to culture. That is why protecting our Western European heritage is so important to me. It is all we have to prtect the future.

Not as eloquent as Fjordman, ZionistYoungster or Ypp, but I hope it gets my point across.

It's precisely the talk about "whites", and races in general, that leaves such a dissonant sound in my ears. I am fully cognizant that writers like Fjordman mean it as a shorthand for "the cultures that European peoples created". But the very fact of using the term, "whites" means the Leftists have a field day in painting cultural preservationists as "racists".

I realize this is a matter of terminology, of marketing, but if there's any lesson we should have learned from the politics of the last few years, it's that perception shapes the final results. Therefore the use of terms like "whites", except in pointing the hypocrisy of the Leftists' "reverse"-racism, works against the cause of cultural preservationism, ipso facto.

Racism is indefensible. I agree with the Leftists on that; where I disagree with them is in their alacrity for using the race card, nearly always in situations where it doesn't apply (and, in contrast, often not where it does, like Darfur). But cultural imperialism, in contradistinction, is not only defensible, it's a damn good precept (I wrote a post on that last March). If you believe your cultural is a worthy one, then you are justified not only in preserving it from encroachment, but also (at a later stage) forcing it on the other side. By this I mean decrees like that those who murder apostates are to be executed, on a par with Sir Charles Napier's policy toward widow-murderers in his day's India.

Let us avoid the use of racial terminology, even when we know what we really mean when we use it. Move the fingers a little more on the keyboard (i.e. "Western culture" instead of "whites")--the gains, in the form of not supplying the Leftraitors with ammunition against us cultural preservationists, are invaluable.

Excellent article, as always. Fjordman is one of the best authors writing on multicultural issues.

A decade ago I read Tom Chittum's book "Civil War II". In it he suggests that empires, which he describes as poly-ethnic societies are inherently unstable. To hold them together force is used, and various groups are often selected to play certain roles, or bought off with special rights or grants.

Over time these arraingments become strained, and eventually a civil war is the likely result.

His theories were based in some large part on his experience of having lived in both Zimbabwe and Yugoslavia at the time both broke up. Despite their very different history both nations split, and fought, along ethnic and racial lines.

I read the book with as much of an open mind as I could muster, but I simple could not accept many of the basic ideas in it, even thought I had to admit they were well argued.

No, a decade later, I see many of the schisms that he was predicting happening.

I no longer think it entirely unlikely that something like he describes is a likely outcome, in the USA. I think it is all but certain is one or more nations in Europe.

People can only be expected to deny their own self interests for so long. Guilt is a useful guide, but like pain, one becomes conditioned to it and it is no longer so effective a control.

Things as various as the wide-spread derision among whites for the absurd claims of the 'Jena-Six' defenders, the continuing success of anti affirmative action votes in states of all types (red and blue), the utter rejection of illegal amnesty, and many others, tell me that many in the West have already abandoned the absurd pretenses of the multiculturalists.

Given that social discourse is still bound by the old rules (no discussion of race qua race), but social thinking has moved far beyond it we have set the stage perfectly for a powerful reformer, a demagogue, or a man on a white horse.

Which we get I can not say, but I think we are certain to see changes. Hopefully they are not part of what Mr. Chittum so clearly envisioned in that book.

Rohan writes: "Here's what I think. Humans are not made up of multiple species. We are all the same genetically. So the massive differences in the way different groups think must be cultural."

Take the example of dogs given above. Dogs are all the same species. And, to some extent it is possible to try and raise a cuddly pit-bull, or a mean poodle.

But that pit-bull is always going to be a more difficult and rowdy dog than the poodle.

Put another way: the olympics in recent years have featured sprinters from all over the world, but all of them with the dark black skin and muscular build of the West African tribes from which they are descended. Now obviously all over the world nations are trying to "nurture" sprinters. The ones coming from some of the European nations like England and Italy are part of a very small minority, and no doubt spent some number of years competing mostly against the white English majority in regional matches. Yet, despite the 'nurture' of common coaches and a natural desire to beat the runner in the lane next to you. However by the time we get to the Olympics it's all black fellows on the line for the finals.

Despite the fact that we are all the same species, some races (and even smaller hereditary groups)seem to have a genetic capability that is far greater for some things.

We have observed this in sports for decades. In sports, we are even allowed to discuss it once in a while, without being told we're racist. The proof is just too obviously sitting there to ignore.

Given this, is it realistic to say that there can not be a genetic component to other abilities, be they intellectual (like your brain surgeon example), or social (as in the seeming inability of the sub-saharans to organize a modern society)?

It is important to keep in mind that group statistics are only true about groups, and are not absolute indicators for every individual difference. The facts that blacks, as a group, are more likley to make great sprinters does not mean that no white can ever achieve greatness in sprinting. (Although it's been quite a few Olympics since we've seen one.)

The individual-to-individual variation in humans is large, and occurs in all groups.

Further, you write: "I believe you could take a newborn muslim and turn him into a orthodox rabbi, or take a white newborn and turn him into a radical imam." Sure, basic ideologies or cultures are given, not inhereted.

You continue: "Or take a newbirn from the jungle in Africa and turn him into a heart surgeon.Perhaps not. Heart surgeon is a peak occupation, like NBA player. You could not insist that someone born in Thailand be an NBA player, and no amount of training is likely to overcome his genetic inheritence which is likely to mean that he won't hit even 5'9, much less average height for the NBA.

The question really is, could you train him to be an upstanding citizen of a modern European state, like Sweden.

Of course the falicy is that the babies of the 'minorities' in the West are not being raised by adoptive parents fully grounded in the culture. They are being raised by unassimilated parents who are often hostile to the host culture

In summary rejecting that the 'nature' side of things is a factor in our lives, especially when viewed at the group statistical level, is exactly the deep programming that Fjordman is asking you to throw off.

It is a convention of western liberals that we don't admit or discuss these differences, that we ignore them in our policies, and even that we shun those who insist on pointing them out.

This 'forbidden topic' needs to go away, particularly now that we have invited millions of people unlike us to live among us.

As one example of how failing to admit these facts into the discussion hurts us all: in the USA we have the 'No Child Left Behind Act'. This act, based on the liberal but incorrect assumptions that all kids are equal in learning ability, mandates that all students in the USA take standardized tests every three years.

The results of the tests are used to rate schools. If all kids are the same, then logically schools should be able to train some large percent of them to the minimum standards. Failing schools are therefore proof of poor teaching or administration.

Not surprisingly black dominated schools tend to be at the top of the failure list. So we are now punishing teachers for something they likely have not done, and continuing to promote a story (your school failed, it's substandard) that increases the sense of anger at the society at large felt by that minority group.

The 'corrective actions' (such as letting the kids change schools) are likely to be completely ineffective as well, all because we've all decided to follow your 100% nurture rule.

I understand, it is a more comfortable rule to live with. It does tend to prevent the horrible wrong that occurs when a talented black person is denied an opportunity because of his skin color.

But at this point I think that positive can be achieved in a less destructive mannner. The conventional liberal agreement to ignore the truth and embrace the lie (we are 100% creatures of nurture, we are all the same species, anyone can be or do anything) is causing far more harm than good for us as a society.

I think this is one of the main points of Fjordman's excellent essay, and you seem to have skipped over it.

John Savage said... Contra Rohan and ZionistYoungster, I hope Fjordman will confirm that he meant what he said when he referred to "race" and "whites".

And furthermore, it's not Fjordman but the all-encompassing Left (encompassing virtually all political parties etc.) who put these concepts in focus, with its anti-white racism. The way to a truly race blind society can only go through bringing to the surface and opposing the way the all-encompassing Left uses the terms "race" and "whites".

So unlike ZionistYoungster thinks, there's no other way for Fjordman to phrase it, 'cause these are the concepts that the all-encompassing Left put on the agenda. Furthermore, ZionistYoungster hasn't understood the basic message of Fjordman's article, since he writes "Racism is indefensible. I agree with the Leftists on that".

As Fjordman wrote:"American novelist Susan Sontag even stated that “The white race is the cancer of human history.” I am told that I am evil specifically because of my race, and five minutes later I’m told that race doesn’t matter."

ZionistYoungster is still mesmerized by the shadow theater and simplistic word games by the all-encompassing Left.

"A decade ago I read Tom Chittum's book "Civil War II". In it he suggests that empires, which he describes as poly-ethnic societies are inherently unstable. To hold them together force is used, and various groups are often selected to play certain roles, or bought off with special rights or grants.

Over time these arraingments become strained, and eventually a civil war is the likely result. "

This was demonstrated by the break up of Yugoslavia. It was the Soviet police state that held it together. When the USSR collapsed and the satellite states were "set free", we saw Yugoslavia break up upon ethnic lines that were being held together by force.

This is what we are starting to see in the West, more and more state force being used to keep the "harmony". What happened in Cronulla 2005 is only the beginning....

Excellent points. And I agree with most everything. In my examples of raising newborns to be different from their culture I was referring to the mental part, not the physical part. There are very real differences in the physical aspects of the races formed over tens of thousands of years. Mentally, though, I still think we start our a blank slate. You hit the nail on the head with this statement:

"Of course the falicy is that the babies of the 'minorities' in the West are not being raised by adoptive parents fully grounded in the culture. They are being raised by unassimilated parents who are often hostile to the host culture"

That's where the nuture comes in. I may be holding on to some liberal brainwashing. Who knows. That is why I search the blogs. To be educated. Comments such as yours, and the excellent Fjordman, force me to think. Not always a comfortable thing to have to do.

"Given this, is it realistic to say that there can not be a genetic component to other abilities, be they intellectual (like your brain surgeon example), or social (as in the seeming inability of the sub-saharans to organize a modern society)?"

The physical traits of your brain affects such things as mood disorders; intellectual capabilities and social behaviors are a matter of nurture. The way you bring the child up is the way your society will be in those areas. "The Japanese are a hard-working, disciplined people" and "The Arabs are lethargic and corrupt", to the extent they are true, are not the result of genetics, but of cultural upbringing.

"The question really is, could you train him to be an upstanding citizen of a modern European state, like Sweden."

The question has already been answered, in the affirmative, by multitudes of fine, upstanding Hindu citizens of Britain. If there's a will there's a way. The Mexican illegals in the US do not have any incentive to defer to the host culture today (in contrast to 50 years ago), and the Muslims have a disincentive, in the form of the doctrines of their religion, against accommodating themselves to their host cultures. Race has nothing to do with it, except in the indirect sense that Leftists are perpetuating race-hatred through their "anti-"/"reverse"-racist fanaticism.

"In summary rejecting that the 'nature' side of things is a factor in our lives, especially when viewed at the group statistical level, is exactly the deep programming that Fjordman is asking you to throw off."

It's not about rejecting the "nature" side of things. We all accept that both nature and nurture have their influence. Where we disagree is on the extent each factor has. The way I, as a culturalist, see it, racialists inflate the influence of nature beyond proportion.

"This 'forbidden topic' needs to go away, particularly now that we have invited millions of people unlike us to live among us."

I do not regard any topic (except for death threats) as forbidden. However, I think it is absolutely needless for serving the interest of preserving cultures from encroachment. My argument for mass expulsion of the Muslims from all non-Muslim states, as I wrote in a comment the Baron later made into a post, is as follows: "This is ours, and since you didn't come to become part of ours, but to remake ours in your image, then you'll have to get lost". Note that there is nothing about race here, just basic culturalism, yet that is all that's needed in order to stem the tide of immigrants with a colonialist agenda.

Conservative Swede,

I accept the possibility that Fjordman meant it literally when he talked of "whites". From my culturalist point of view, this nod to racialism is unfortunate. But that's my opinion.

"ZionistYoungster is still mesmerized by the shadow theater and simplistic word games by the all-encompassing Left."

Mesmerized? Hardly. I just don't think it prudent to bang one's head against the wall of reality. The reality being that this war of minds and perceptions has a definite bearing on policies in the real world.

2 Orwells GhostNational socialism was based on Darwinism, but how is the race attached to it? I don't see it. Jews have average IQ a bit higher than Europeans. Did nazis mean that higher race must have lower IQ? That's precisely what is happening now, by the way.

Second, Hitler himself went perfectly with arabs and Japanese. Nazis used race for propaganda among simple people, who bought it, but their real aim was to kill the Jewish God. Hitler himself sad: "We must fight the Jew in ourselves". Amasingly, how modern Europeans are still hooked on Hitler's propaganda. The problem is that "Arian race" really means everybody who hates Jews, even black muslims.

So, what can we suggest using Fjordmans discovery that mlticulturalism is the? Freud would suggest to show to white people the real reason of their neurosis. That is not easy because modern people are arrogant materialists. Probably first is to decouple the racial question from antisemitism. Restore the real meaning of white race and the real aims of the nazis (which are surprisingly similar to those of the EU).

Second, state that God is psychological fact, which even atheists have in their unconscious. Remind people that killing the God always have consequencies for their sanity.

No ZionistYoungster, it's completely the other way around. But you can't see it since, as I said, your are mesmerized by the shadow theater by the all-encompassing Left.

It's Fjordman that opposes racism, the anti-white racism of the Left, and one cannot oppose something without naming it (even if this will give some people Barbara Boxer fits).

By joining the leftist "racism is indefensible" crowd (a shadow theater phrase that in effect means anti-white racism), you are the one here making the nod to racialism. Possibly by mistake, because you cannot see the Left for what it is, but nevertheless you explicitly grouped yourself together with them. And this makes your self-described "culturalist" point of view a non-position, it's collapsed.

You said:It's precisely the talk about "whites", and races in general, that leaves such a dissonant sound in my ears.

But this is only when it comes from a white person, right? When a brown person talks about race etc. you wouldn't see this as something icky, but something to have a dialog with him about, as a means to spread your cultural imperialism, right? To see a brown person's talk about race etc. as icky would be a nod to racism according to the shadow theater of the Left, right?

"It's Fjordman that opposes racism, the anti-white racism of the Left, and one cannot oppose something without naming it (even if this will give some people Barbara Boxer fits)."

Which I do as well, which is exactly why I decided to interpret Fjordman's use of the term, "whites" the way I did. I don't think Fjordman is a racialist, let alone racist; the same cannot be said, however, for some having websites where they make mountains out of the case that "blacks have a low average IQ".

"By joining the leftist 'racism is indefensible' crowd (a shadow theater phrase that in effect means anti-white racism), you are the one here making the nod to racialism."

Agreeing with a sentiment doesn't mean agreeing that all those who voice it stand by it. No one has been more vehement than me in pointing out the hypocrisy and racism of the Leftists.

"Possibly by mistake, because you cannot see the Left for what it is, [...]"

Oh yeah, the fact that my blog is about 90% full of posts exposing the Left means nothing, sure...

"[...] but nevertheless you explicitly grouped yourself together with them."

I have done nothing but express agreement with a sentiment that the Leftists voice but, hypocritically, do not stand by. I am not going to reject an opinion I agree with just because Leftists said it.

"And this makes your self-described 'culturalist' point of view a non-position, it's collapsed."

You seem to imply that my culturalist point of view constitutes intellectual capitulation to the Left. This is false: it is something I believe in for itself, as a positive tenet and not just a negative one (and can even support with scripture if the circumstances call for it, such as Leviticus 24:22).

"But this is only when it comes from a white person, right? When a brown person talks about race etc. you wouldn't see this as something icky, but something to have a dialog with him about, as a means to spread your cultural imperialism, right?"

You're very uncharitable. I express agreement with one thing the Leftists say (but, again, do not do), and you take it to mean I share all their ways of thinking. If I must present my "credentials", you can read my post on the Don Imus affair, from April 12, 2007, where I rake Al Sharpton on the coals for his anti-white race-mongering.

Race, as an explanation for things that are the result of nurture, is a chimera. Both Leftists and Rightists who make race a factor in their policies, no matter in what direction, are guilty of perpetuating that chimera, steering us away from dealing with realities. When the white English girl Abigail Howarth was barred from working at the Environment Agency on account of her race and ethnicity, this was bad because it favored ideological criteria over choosing the best person for the job.

There is a world of difference between Martin Luther King's "the content of their character" and Malcolm X's "white people are evil". Both are called activists for civil rights, but King was truly an anti-racist, in that he strove to take all considerations of race out of the system, whereas Malcolm X was an anti-white racist and grievance-monger. It is not difficult to guess which of the two I'm more partial to.

No, I don't think we all do, as demonstrated by comments above. The idea that physical characteristics are inhereted is agreed, but then somehow the brain is not seen as a physical entity.

Which it is.

You claim that: "The physical traits of your brain affects such things as mood disorders; intellectual capabilities and social behaviors are a matter of nurture."

I think there is ample evidence that intellectual capability is limited by physical traits of the brain.

As in the case of my sprinters: not everyone born with the genetics to be a sprinter will develop the capability, and anyone who spends time learning to sprint will probably get faster, but ultimate ability for any individual is limited by genetics.

As for social behavior it seems to be a learned behavior, but there are some indicators that some antisocial behaviors are endemic to some genetic groupings, irrestpective of social setting (ie: minority in an advanced western nation, majority in a advanced western nation, minority in a non-wesetern nation).

The implications of this are disturbing to contmeplate, but as Fjordman says in his essay, that doesn't mean we should ignore it.

Where we disagree is on the extent each factor has. The way I, as a culturalist, see it, racialists inflate the influence of nature beyond proportion.

I'm going to surprise you and agree with you! I think it is over-emphasized by some people because it is denied by so many others. As consensus reality insists "there is no physical or genetic component of intelligence or social behavior" but there is in fact plenty of data it becomes an obsession for some to point this out.

On a practical level culture is a much more comfortable thing to talk about. It is also a much more useful thing, as one can change culture. No one can change their genetics, or group genetics (except over longer periods of time via inter-breeding).

Especially where we have a majority culture still, I think that is our best fortification against chaos. Even though we haven't made much of it so far.

The racialist realism seems to me to be mostly useful in changing the way we (the civilized world) attempt to help the many basket case nations in Africa.

"[...] The idea that physical characteristics are inhereted is agreed, but then somehow the brain is not seen as a physical entity."

I see your point, and I agree the brain is a physical entity. But then you seem to argue that, because the brain is a physical entity, all that stems from the brain is dependent on genetics. Here it is that I differ: mood disorders, mental illness and the like are the only conclusive area where the physical reality of the brain predominates. Intelligence is a borderline case: may affect the starting-point, but nurture plays most of the parts. And social behaviors are totally about nurture.

"As in the case of my sprinters: not everyone born with the genetics to be a sprinter will develop the capability, and anyone who spends time learning to sprint will probably get faster, but ultimate ability for any individual is limited by genetics."

No disagreement here.

"As for social behavior it seems to be a learned behavior, but there are some indicators that some antisocial behaviors are endemic to some genetic groupings, irrestpective of social setting (ie: minority in an advanced western nation, majority in a advanced western nation, minority in a non-wesetern nation)."

I have yet to find an example of such behaviors that cannot be explained by upbringing.

"I'm going to surprise you and agree with you! I think it is over-emphasized by some people because it is denied by so many others. As consensus reality insists 'there is no physical or genetic component of intelligence or social behavior' but there is in fact plenty of data it becomes an obsession for some to point this out."

The over-emphasis is bad enough, but much worse are the policy implications of the racialist view: segregation is just the first thing it could lead to (with special classes for blacks, for example, because, as the racialists say, "they are less intelligent on average than whites"). Segregation means giving permanence to racial prejudice. And I don't care if that last sentence of mine sounds PC: if being un-PC means returning to bad old days, then OK, call me PC. The moonbats going off their rocker with their "anti-racist" fanaticism doesn't mean we should go back to the days of segregation.

"On a practical level culture is a much more comfortable thing to talk about. It is also a much more useful thing, as one can change culture. No one can change their genetics, or group genetics (except over longer periods of time via inter-breeding)."

If you're saying that the problem of immigrants unwilling to accommodate to their host culture is the result of unchangeable genetic traits, then I suggest we can all just close shop and retreat into our fastnesses. And no, I'm not telling you to shut up, I'm just following what seems to me the logical conclusion of the racialist view.

"The racialist realism seems to me to be mostly useful in changing the way we (the civilized world) attempt to help the many basket case nations in Africa."

Then I can only say the racialist view, in bringing to the "White Man's Burden" theory by virtue of thinking whites are more intelligent than blacks, has been the utmost failure in helping the basket-case nations of Africa. As neoconservative economic theorists like Thomas Sowell, as well as black African economists, have said, the African nations would be much better served by lessening aid to them, forcing them to develop their economies; aid from the "white world" does nothing but make the black Africans reliant on it, as well as going into the coffers of corrupt rulers (a problem all over the world, having nothing to do with race, and everything to do with the reality that power corrupts).

The Progressives (radical Leftists) err in thinking human nature in general is malleable. The racialists err in thinking few, if any, human givens can be changed, as they are all the results of genetics, which are unchangeable. I find both views unrealistic and potentially damaging. The Progressivist view has potential to turn whole human societies into guinea-pigs (as was the case in the Soviet Union), while the racialist view is a recipe for the petrification of the status quo and for the erection of walls, whether physical or metaphorical or both, between people.

A lot of philosophers have "shown" how free will is an illusion. But the man with an argument is at the mercy of the man with an experience, and we lead our whole lives under the working premise that our free will is absolutely real. My view, the culturalist view, has, if nothing else, the benefit of irrefutable experience to support it.

I used to eat milk and meat together with no aversion. But a few months after I got religion, I came to the present state, in which the very thought of milk and meat being together makes me want to throw up. A change of taste? Yes. Nature or nurture? Nurture without a shadow of doubt. Culture, as in social values and mores, can be changed. This we know from looking around us.

In the end, this is just a blog discussion, and it's not for me to decide where Europeans should steer their future course. I'm glad that, in my own local situation, I don't have to grapple with those questions at all. For me, expelling the Muslims is the only issue I have to think about, and I'm glad it's that way.

As a long oppressed white American guy, I want to thank you for standing up for me and my downtrodden brethren.You know, when I stop to think about it, I seethe inwardly. It's so unfair. I mean, I had 2 loving parents, a happy childhood, a good education at a first rate college, the chance to do what I want in life, a loving wife, a brand new daughter who fills our lives with joy...When am I going to catch a break? Just a little one? It's true, I've never been lynched, or been on the receiving end of state sanctioned discrimination, or b een harrassed by the police for driving through the wrong neighborhood, but seriously, my life sucks, and it's all because of those mean darkies who...Well, to tell you the truth, I don't know quite what they did to ruin my life or even what it is about my lucky life that's so hard and unfair, but I assure you, some minority somewhere is responsible for the crippling hardships I labor under--hardships that are all the more crippling for me since I don't even know what they are or how they are crippling me.Thank you for standing up for me at last.

Fjordman, in this essay, sounds very much like Jared Taylor. If Gates of Vienna keeps posting this sort of thing, y'all are going to get into serious trouble with the thought police. :)

I'd rather not be bothered with a long, drawn out argument about it, but I don't buy the idea that culture trumps race. I suspect those who espouse that idea define race merely as skin color. Actually, the races differ in many heritable traits. Do a Google search for "IQ gap," for example.

In any case, whether third world immigrants can be transformed into perfectly good Americans or Europeans is a question that should never have been asked. What do we gain by radically transforming the ethnic balance of our countries? If the assimilationists are wrong, then we bequeath to our descendents a dangerous third world pest hole like the ones from whence the immigrants came, rather than the shining city on a hill that our ancestors created. Wouldn't we need to be reeeeeeally stupid to take that chance?

rohan 10/10/2007 1:35 PM wrote ... Are there any web resources you can point to that further discuss the racial/nurture/nature aspect of cultures? You've made a lot of good arguments and I'm interested in learning more about it ...

Please see my comments to the earlier posting The Death of Johannesburg , which include numerous links to online articles and books, some written for the professional scientist, others for a general audience. Though these are not centred on culture, the statistical analysis of empirical observations they contain do not support the equality agenda. Moreover, at least for intelligence, the more that the environment is equalised, the greater the genetic differences are apparent.

ZonistYoungster 10/10/2007 1:52 PM ... Here it is that I differ: [A] mood disorders, mental illness and the like are the only conclusive area where the physical reality of the brain predominates. [B] Intelligence is a borderline case: may affect the starting-point, but nurture plays most of the parts. [C} And social behaviors are totally about nurture.

Which references do you have supporting your assertions A, B and C? B and C are flatly contradicted within the references I give in my comments to the earlier posting The Death of Johannesburg

I think that every-one should read the UN declaration on the rights of indiginous peoples,article 8.1"indiginous peoples and individuals have the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of thier culture"8.2"states shall provide effective mechanisms for prevention of and redress for:(a)"any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of thier integrity as distinct peoples,or of thier cultural values or ethnic identities"(b)any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of thier lands,territories or resources"(c)any form of forced population transfer which has the aim or effect of violating or undermining any of thier rights"(d)"any form of forced assimilation or integration"

ZionistYoungster is having big problems with Fjordman using the term "whites" and forces himself to fantasize how Fjordman didn't really write that, or mean that.

ZionistYoungster wrote:It's precisely the talk about "whites", and races in general, that leaves such a dissonant sound in my ears. I am fully cognizant that writers like Fjordman mean it as a shorthand for "the cultures that European peoples created".

If Fjordman had meant "the cultures that European peoples created" then he would have written that. ZionistYoungster is so deeply into his hypnotic state that he simply does not get it. Furthermore, according to ZionistYoungster Fjordman's talk about "whites" (which ZY at the same time has to make a denial dance around that it actually happened) is a "nod to racialism".

If there is anyone to compare Fjordman to here it's Martin Luther King. MLK talked about races in the very same way as Fjordman here, but about "blacks" instead of "whites". If ZY had been race blind, MLK's speech would render the same "dissonant sound" in his ears, but it didn't. This is because ZY shares the same double standard with the all-encompassing Left (which is so all-encompassing that ZY is part of it). Furthermore, we do not hear from ZY how MLK's speech was a "nod to racialism" or the denial dancing about how MLK when he said "blacks" didn't mean that but "the cultures that African peoples created".

ZY is simply discriminating against Fjordman and white people in general.

When ZY writes "Racism is indefensible. I agree with the Leftists on that", this is very telling. And ZY hasn't understood yet how bad this is. You know all those communist regimes, they all named themselves "Democratic people's republic of ...". They surely meant seriously that they where democratic and of the people. ZY's statement is parallel to saying "Only democracy and the rule of the people is defensible, I agree with the communist regimes about that."

ZY wrote:You seem to imply that my culturalist point of view constitutes intellectual capitulation to the Left.

No, it's the other way around. It's your capitulation to the all-encompassing Left that makes your culturalist position collapse, and ring so very hollow. The all-encompassing Left speaks in the same hollow way for a culturalist position, you are merely parroting their rhetoric. And you share their way of discriminating against whites, as we've seen here. The difference between you and the leftists is merely of degree. You protest the most vile expressions of leftist anti-white racism, but you share the fundamental assumptions and world view with them, and it scares you when Fjordman speaks about "whites".

The culturalist position is just as hyper-ideological and moronic as the racist one. And both require huge amounts of hypocrisy and dishonesty to hold (typically in a stat of mass hypnosis).

Many times it's hard to say what is race and what is culture. But as I always say: culture floats as slowly as glass. So even things that would be purely cultural could take centuries to change. Look at Islam for example!

But then again, most things are mixed together and few things are purely about race or about culture. If people just took a little interest in the science of biology they'd know that:genotype + environment -> phenotype

But people seem to prefer their hyper-ideologies. I suppose it's a way for them to channeling their hate.

The culturalist position is just as hyper-ideological and moronic as the racist one.

Another such pair is Communism and Libertarianism, each taking a hyper-ideological extreme position of purism. Which interestingly enough provides them with many similarities: in the zealousness, the gist of the rhetoric, the preference for basing all "reasoning" on oversimplified formulas, in the kind of Utopian dreams of a paradise on earth.

In his recent post, Fjordman has done a disservice to his community of readers by his sloppy use of the 'race' concept in discussing Multiculturalism, Islamicism and related issues. He tells us early on:

"In the name of Multiculturalism we completely ignore all ethnic, religious, cultural and, yes, racial differences, because we have decided that these things don’t matter........"I used to believe until quite recently that skin color was irrelevant. I was brought up that way. I still don’t think ethnicity or race does or should mean everything. In fact, I would say it is patently uncivilized to claim that it means everything. But I can no longer say with a straight face that it means absolutely nothing, and if it means more than nothing, its needs to be taken into account. "

He distinguished race from ethnicity, religion and culture, overlapping concepts which are normally associated with 'nurture' as opposed to 'nature'. Nature, here, means genetic while nurture is, by default, everything else which, in combination with our genetic makeup, makes up who and what we are.

The only racial quality he seems to mention is skin color. There are of course other correlates to race (or more precisely, to ethnic subgroups within a race)-- hair, lips, susceptibility to various diseases and so on--, but these are not what he and others are very concerned about. When he talks about what "mean(s) more than nothing...(and need) to be taken into account", he surely does not mean these sorts of things.

Then what can the contributions of race that need to be taken into account be other than genetic contributions influencing on (primarily social) behavior? Then supposing this to be true, what modes of behavior can these be other than those already included under the categories of ethnic, religious and cultural?

So I believe Fjordman must be concerned with racially correlated genes which predispose unwanted behavior found in certain ethnic, religious and/or cultural groups. The question then becomes, why mention race at all in this context? Why not just talk about an ethnic, religious or cultural group directly?

While there is no reason to bring race into these discussions, there are two reasons to positively keep it out:

First, it is virtually impossible to establish a causal connection between racially significant genes (genes more prevalent in one group than in another) and something as subtle as asocial behavior. Just look at the kinds of things currently being definitely connected to genes by medical research; they are simple physical things (e.g. sickle cell anemia). And all the data measuring IQ, asocial behavior, and so on, versus race cannot be connected to genes except by desire and imagination. In other words, efforts to connect nature (race, genes) rather than nurture to unwanted behavior are due to ignorance and/or malice.

Second, when a racial connection is asserted the implication is that change for the better cannot be brought about through education, including that provided by experience. The alternative remedy is expulsion or extermination. The racial tag put on modes of behavior, a tag which is both unnecessary and unproven, is a dangerous suggestion. And it too is often motivated by ignorance and/or malice.

I do not ascribe these motivations to Fjordman nor to any of the correspondents to this blog. I do agree with desire of peoples to maintain their own ethnic. religious and cultural integrity the face of current onslaughts from both the Left and from Islam. What I think is that people have been goaded into fury by the current situation as caught by these quotes from Fjordman's paper:

"....This Jihadist organization is calling for a global war against whites. Not Christians or Jews. Whites. I have been told all of my life that skin color is irrelevant, but this balancing act gets a lot more difficult when somebody declares war against you because of your race...... American novelist Susan Sontag even stated that “The white race is the cancer of human history.” I am told that I am evil specifically because of my race, and five minutes later I’m told that race doesn’t matter."

And in this fury there has been an important slippage in clarity of thought. I hope that Fjordman will note and rectify this not unimportant problem.

Sagredo 10/10/2007 5:32 PM wrote ... all the data measuring IQ, asocial behavior, and so on, versus race cannot be connected to genes except by desire and imagination. ...This statement is false, as can be confirmed by checking some of the references I have mentioned above.

Sagredo wrote:I do agree with desire of peoples to maintain their own ethnic. religious and cultural integrity the face of current onslaughts from both the Left and from Islam.

Don't be ridiculous, Sagredo. We all know that you are the Left. And as you have probably already figured, nobody agrees here with your verbiage junk. Except perhaps for ZionistYoungster.

And regarding the mentioning of "skin colour", people like you made it the issue. So do not come whining now that Fjordman is forced to bring it up. Hypocrite!

You must be really dumb to believe that Fjordman is discussing genes here. He's discussing the social concept of race, the issue that has been imposed upon us by you and your ilk with our hateful totalitarian junk. And for the social concept of race, "skin colour" is a perfect synonym. Genes is another discussion.

In his recent post, Fjordman has done a disservice to his community of readers by his sloppy use of the 'race' concept...

Who cares what you think, you are a PC leftist; part of the problem. Nobody considers you part of the community.

Ypp, you misunderstand about Nationalism Socialism again. The fact that Jews had high IQs meant nothing to the Nazis, who held that such "intelligence" was merely evidence of moral depravity in Jews, whereby intelligence bncame animal cunning, business acumen became petty swindling, intellectualism became a sign of effiminancy and so on. National Socialists designed a whole battery of tests to "prove" Aryan/German racial supremacy rested not just on traditional IQ but various virtues expressed as biological traits, and the Darwinism is in that, having so "proved" Aryans, Germans were now free to "survive as the fittest"...by any means allowed them including war, extermination,supremacy etc.

I cannot understand how an intelligent person like you can so misunderstand something as basic as the racial component of National Socialism. Sorry I am not being rude!

I already conceded that I might be mistaken and Fjordman meant exactly as he wrote it. My first interpretation is the result not only of my leanings, but of my belief, based upon Fjordman's other writings, that he is not an adherent of the racialist view.

"If there is anyone to compare Fjordman to here it's Martin Luther King. MLK talked about races in the very same way as Fjordman here, but about 'blacks' instead of 'whites'."

We're not talking about Fjordman anymore, we're talking about our takes on the issue. Maybe Fjordman is a culturalist like me, maybe a racialist like you, I can't say; but there's no "maybe" with regard to us two, and our basic disagreement couldn't be clearer.

"Furthermore, we do not hear from ZY how MLK's speech was a 'nod to racialism' or the denial dancing about how MLK when he said 'blacks' didn't mean that but 'the cultures that African peoples created'."

You insist on not getting it.

Why did MLK talk about "blacks"? Because he was up against true racism. His goal was race-blindness.

Why does the discrimination against Abigail Howarth outrage me? Because it's true (even if "reverse") racism. My goal is race-blindness.

But this talk of racialists about how "blacks have a lower average IQ than whites"--this is something else. This could never lead to race-blindness. On the contrary: it could only lead to the return of the bad ancien regime.

"ZY is simply discriminating against Fjordman and white people in general."

"And you share their [the Leftists'. --ZY] way of discriminating against whites, as we've seen here."

I infer from this, that anyone who does not agree with your racialist view is guilty of being one with the Leftists and of discriminating against whites. A combination of sweeping generalization and ad hominem that does not leave much room for discussion.

Baron, I don't blame your excellent blog for attracting such opinions, any more than I am surprised when a moderate Leftist blog, upon featuring an article critical of Israel, suddenly attracts hordes of Communists, Islamofascists and conspiracy kooks (like the 9/11 Troofers) to it. Nor am I in any way against their right to speak. My stand for open discourse is almost absolute; the only ones I call for silencing are those who say the "Palestinians" are morally justified in murdering Jews in Israel (God forbid), because that is in the realm of death threats. Them I want dead, and I pray the Sanhedrin will rise soon and execute them. But all others, I don't care about.

With that said, I will say outright, without reservation, that I despise, loathe and abhor those opinions. I despise, loathe and abhor racialism no matter its originator. Whether it's Leftist Jew-haters obsessing with how Ashkenazim are descendants of the Khazars and therefore not true Jews (an argument based on the faulty premise that "Jew" is a race) or Rightists bringing "scientific evidence" of how blacks are genetically incapable of maintaining orderly societies like whites have done, it's the same to me. To me, this is nothing but the same scummy, filthy, poisoned swamp from which all the monsters of treating people on the basis of who they were born to, instead of what they do, have emerged throughout the ages.

You think anyone who hates Islam is my friend and ally? Think again! I am not among those who blindly cling to the tenet, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". All this materialism-derived view of humanity through the lens of race and genetics is far beyond distasteful to me--I believe it's downright heretical, for it goes against a host of decidedly anti-racialist truths presented by HaShem in His Torah, which is my one and only overarching standard for judging all things. My ethnicity (not "race") accepts anyone, of any race, who proves a deep-seated desire to join; views that make degrees of humans in things of the spirit (intelligence, behavior) are nothing but an echo of the filthy old world of paganism, where each race had exclusive access to its spiritual heritage. I will pray God wipes out this mindset away from the world, speedily, amen.

You can smear me with appellations like "no better than the Leftists" as much as you wish. I'm a right-winger in nearly all counts (except economics, where I'm a centrist), and I hate today's moonbattery with a passion, but the fact that I focus on the Leftscum doesn't mean I won't call out the Rightscum when I see them. Y'all can go back to your comfortable BNP holes rehashing "scientific studies" about how blacks are mentally inferior in average to whites. I know what I believe in, and I know why it is I fight Islam: because it's a threat against my lifestyle, if not life. Not because it's just another part of the fight for preserving "racial purity". I wish you good luck in saving Europe from Islamization, but as regards your goal of making policies on the basis of "racial facts", I'm not only not with you on that, I'm against you. Not because I'm "part of the Left", but because racialism is well and truly against my principles.

Thanks for the good thread, Baron. For all my ill-feeling, this was an important discussion for me. It helped cement my stance.

Ypp, sorry for my mis-typings above. As to how Hitler accommodated Japanese and other non-Aryans, well he was an opportunist politician as well as a racialist and needed allies, naturally, for convenience. In any event he was not competing racially with Asiatics but with fellow Europeans.

Hitler was nothing if not full of complex self-loathing and thought he was one quarter Jewish by blood. One of the reasons he refused to have children was that he considered he did not typify the "Aryan" ideal in his looks ( i.e. he was scared his child would look Jewish).

Some of the ways National Socialists were modernists are surprising. Hitler himself was a vegetarian non-smoker who did not drink but did take drugs, initially "natural remedies" of which he was fond. Great store was set by nature and ecology, with much use of alternative medicine. Astrology, pyramid and crystal spirituality were abundant along with a belief in archeology to unearth Atlantis and other lost "Aryan" meta-civilizations. Physical health fitness was a premium, along with natural childbirth and getting in touch with the inner Aryan self. Technological progress was worshipped by a frantic program of modernization incorporating futuristic models of manufacturing, urbanization, collective health care and much else. By now can you recognize many of the roots of modern Europeans? This is why I am able to say Nazis were "reactionary modernists", even futurists.

2 Orwells_GhostThanks for correction, maybe I underestimated racial component of nazism. But still, it does not explain why they were fixed on Jews. Whatever their silly racial theories be, everybody agree that the most traumatic event of the WW2 was Holocost. Not because they killed more Jews than other people. But because it had the symbolic meaning of killing the God-father.

Also I may have been wrong that racism has no connections with antisemitism. But even if it had such connections before, we must cut those connections in order to decouple the question of race and the killing of God. Whatever Nazis thought about it is now irrelevant, important is what modern people think.

We see most people here being greatful and in strong agreement with this article by Fjordman. And then we see some people freaking out about it. ZionistYoungster is such an example. And he has decided to take out his anger over what Fjordman wrote on me. It's extremely funny to see how ZY at the same time states that he understands that Fjordman might have written what he actually wrote, while at the same time stubbornly denying that he wrote what he wrote. Those of you who studied the art of hypnosis, know how the person in hypnosis must have a double mind, to uphold the state of hypnosis. It cannot be displayed more clearly than by ZY here.

I say that ZY is part of the all-encompassing Left. ZY claims that he's a right-winger. Yes, so where is the contradiction? The right-wing is part of the all-encompassing Left. Thank you ZY for illustrating my point about this so extremely well.

ZY wrote:Why did MLK talk about "blacks"? Because he was up against true racism. His goal was race-blindness.

So according to ZY the issue brought up by Fjordman is a fake issue of no real importance. His only real concern is how articles like this might cause "racism" (and ill-feelings for poor ZY). ZY position is the very definition of political correctness. When blacks are facing racial oppression it's a real issue, but when whites do it it's a non-issue and the only worry of ZY is that whites would actually do something to change it. It's laughable that ZY imagines himself as race blind. The last word I agree with though. Blind and mesmerized.

ZY wrote:Maybe Fjordman is a culturalist like me, maybe a racialist like you, I can't say; but there's no "maybe" with regard to us two, and our basic disagreement couldn't be clearer.

For an extremist as ZY, it is only conceivable with other people having positions as extremist as his own. Therefore the either culturalist (as him), or racialist. Moderate people such as me and Fjordman become enigmas to him. Therefore the need for ZY to create strawmen to battle. His extremist position cannot be defended against reason an moderation. The raison d'etre of his version of culturalism urgently needs an extremist racialism to oppose, otherwise it falls flat, and the racialism of his own hypocritical positions gets immediately exposed as well.

And once again we see him fantasizing about him Fjordman didn't write what he actually wrote. What Fjordman wrote effectively excludes the possibility of him being an extremist culturalist such as ZY. Instead Fjordman appears as the voice of moderation and reason, in line with my own. It's funny how people such as ZY fantasize about how I said something different from Fjordman. Where did I do that? Instead it's my strong criticism of his own extremist position that makes him freak out, and the fact that I point out that it's beyond any sort of doubt that Fjordman wrote what he actually wrote.

2 ZionistYoungster Hi youngster. I would recommend that you learn to formulate your ideas shortly and clearly.

As for genital mutilation, what do you mean that it should be defended? How are you going to defend it or attack it? Are you going to go to Africa? Or you mean that writing comments in blogs have any effect?

Look. Fjordman has, in many ways, made a huge contribution over the past several years, but you could, if you were attentive, see this layer of positioning coming.

We can approach those who espouse an ideology whose purpose is to overwhelm and eliminate democratic ideas, governance, and interaction as absolute enemies, to be resisted on all necessary levels (including military) without resorting to "color" and "race." Anyone who's read science over the past twenty years knows that "race" is, and always was, a false conception. The horror that EUROPE created regarding “race” in the last century should generate extreme caution in thinking in anything like similar terms NOW.

If we, who are willing to examine what is actually going on right now, who recognize the absolutely dangerous, hallucinatory level of "mysticalized racism" (read George L. Mosse re: this Nazi phenomenon) present in radical Islamism, capitulate to fear and anger and ELIMINATE the democratic understanding the West has lost so many lives to establish and develop we will have handed the victory to the Islamists and the still-current Nazis. You either believe everybody is equal and has equal rights, or you don’t. Simultaneously, you can fearlessly identify those who would threaten and destroy your rights and those of others (to LIFE and their genitals, for instance!) and ban particular strains of thought as damaging to the common good. That’s banning THOUGHT – not people. Let’s keep our eyes on the ball, here. We are NOT going to fork over our rights OR the responsibility to defend those rights. Enough with the touchy-feely, on the one hand, and the let’s play Nazi, on the other. We need to bring the current democratic analysis FORWARD -- EVERY generation does. We dropped the ball, playing around with post-modernism and relativism, and a distorted understanding of multi-culturalism. Let’s catch up, develop a mature analysis of how current democracies can safeguard rights and responsibilities (read John Mill, for starters), and stop deluding ourselves on the NATURE of the current, very real, threat. These people WANT us to think in “racist” terms! “Democracy, hypocrisy”, they chant, remember? We’re going to HAND this to them? We accept all other human beings as EQUAL. We do NOT accept all IDEAS as having equal VALIDITY. Cool your jets and let’s get to work!

Let us not forget that culture is a function of race. It is the manifestation of a people's interaction with nature - different peoples beget different cultures because different peoples interpret nature differently.

Mass immigration of aliens leads to conflict because it permits critical mass which in turn provides the sustenance to maintain immigrant cultures which grow to compete with the host culture.

Paradoxically this works in favour of those who oppose immigration and who seek the resurgence of our own culture. In an earlier comment in respect of this latest piece from Fjordman someone said that we need 'hope' in order to fight...

Prior to mass third world immigration the vast majority of Europeans were unaware of 'culture' in the sense that to them 'culture' was taken as given. They had nothing to compare their own culture with and saw it merely as 'the way things have always been done'.

Spengler said (more or less) that 'culture is a form of opposition', that is it can only be understood by reference to other cultures. Mass immigration and the importation of alien cultures have provided this opposition which is focusing attention on our own culture and on who and what we are. Which is just what we need in order to fight back.

I've read all this thread, made comments, thought about it alot. What I've come down to is this. I don't care about the color of a person's skin. What I care about is are they "American". By that I mean do they believe in freedom for the individual, our incredible Constitution, respecting the rights of others, wanting and working for a better future for their kids, abiding by our laws and being damn proud when they see our flag. There are Americans born all over the world, of EVERY color, they were just born in the wrong place. I would welcome them all to come here legally. Conversely, there are many living in the geographical U.S. that aren't American at all, of ALL colors (mostly liberals, or idiots, but I repeat myself). Those are the ones I worry about.

2 rohanI can imagine the patriot of the USSR saying exactly the same. Maybe, he would not say "freedom of individual" but rather "freedom from opression", and substitute soviet for american. You are talking as a patriot of a generic empire.

Ypp - Nope, I'm talking about the USA. The USSR did not have the U.S. Constitution. We do. Even so, I think any other country that had these same attributes, including a constitution like ours, would be a pretty good place, too. The former USSR does not even begin to come close.

"I believe whites in the 21st century should desire a room of our own where we can prosper, live in a major Western city without having to fear violence because of our race, and without being stripped of our heritage in order to placate people who moved to our countries out of their own free will. We have the right to preserve our heritage and are under no obligation to commit collective suicide or serve as a dumping ground for other countries. It has nothing to do with animosity towards others. For my part, I am being entirely honest if I say that I still love visiting other cultures, but I will love this even more if I know I can also return to my own."

Absolutely. Spot on. Others may go the civic identity route, and good luck to them, but to destine an entire race to death just to placate that is nonsense. We do have an obligation, a duty to ensure the existence of our own race, and a future for our children, after all.

I have traveled the world and love foreign cultures. In some lands I have found their ways to be completely alien, cruel and barbaric but it is their land.

I have nothing against small scale immigration into an host country as it can promote links between countries. As can genuine love matches in mixed marriages.

What I am not prepared to see happen in order for some mad peoples desire to create a one world occupied by a sea of mud coloured people succeed is watch whilst the white race and their childrens future is obliterated as part of their mad scheme.

Another bromide from the extremist crowd of the all-encompassing Left. This sort of Utopian superstition nowadays always comes in the garb of science. We know so many other examples. E.g. the climate hysteria about global warming is in the same way said to be fully established by science; that all scientist agree about it. This is easily achieved with the soft totalitarian climate that is ruling at the universities in the West. Express a different opinion, or even light skepticism, and your funding is cut off. The power language is very clear and effective.

We have the story of Larry Summers. Showing what happens to dissenters. While proving to the Spitfires how also the difference between men and women is a false conception. Proven by the tyranny of the all-encompassing Left... sorry, by the authority of science.

The same about race, of course. This is how the mechanism of silencing and conformism works, while the Spitfires, ZionistYoungsters and Sagredos lick it all up like cats lapping milk. Yummy, yummy, for these Utopianists. They see it as verified by science, but all they have heard is the echo of their own friends of the all-encompassing Left, managing to silence any dissenting voices by their soft totalitarianism.

The way the issue of race as a "false conception" is spun is that there are too few differences in the DNA to motivate such a concept. But of course even chimps have 99.5% the same DNA as us. Even mice share 99 percent of the genes with men. With the rhetoric used by Spitfire and the "scientific" priesthood of the all-encompassing Left, my idea of similarities among my own family members is an equally false conception, which can be "proven" that same way as how they "proved" that race is a false conception. Families are social constructions, they do not really exist.

And once again, even if there would be some truth in that, from the perspective of the study of DNA, the difference between blacks and whites, or men and mice, are chimeras -- science models can often be counterintuitive, e.g. compare a physics model of the room your are sitting in, with the way you actually see it with your eyes -- it wouldn't have any bearing on this discussion, because the issue of this discussion is the social concept of race, which is evidently existing in a very real way. Fjordman is not discussing genes, but the social concept of race, and how the white race is a concept very much alive and at the core of the ideology of the all-encompassing Left. It's this obsession with the white race of the Spitfires, ZionistYoungsters and Sagredos that creates the very need for Fjordman to bring the whole thing up.

The Green Arrow wrote: I have nothing against small scale immigration into an host country as it can promote links between countries. As can genuine love matches in mixed marriages.

This is how it used to be before the current age of mad science. But the Spitfires, ZionistYoungsters and Sagredos and all the other hyper-ideologists, consider this view of your and mine to be evil and leading to Nazism. Therefore they can only accept the wrath of mad science.

This is how it used to be. As Fjordman wrote "As Professor David Conway demonstrates in his book A Nation Of Immigrants?, after the invasion led by William the Conqueror in 1066, the total number of Norman settlers in Britain was never more than five per cent of the population. The inflow now is 25 times any previous level and frequently from totally alien cultures, not from neighboring territories and cultural cousins as previously."

It's striking how countries with a lot of cultural and ethnic interchange, such as Britain and Spain have been more successful than other European countries; today measured by the fact that it's their two languages that are now world languages. Cultural and ethnic exchange has historically been shown to make your country more successful (at least in the longer run), but only if the number of immigrants/aliens is kept below five percent, and the natural concepts of our family, our nation, our race, our civilization, etc, are kept intact.

While the prevailing concept of mad science with mass immigration and white guilt, and in general inversion of values and racial hypocrisy, is of course a recipe for suicide. And I think the Spitfires, ZionistYoungsters and Sagredos know this too, but they fear more ending up in what they perceive as Nazism, than they fear death (and with their hypersensitivity on the issue, only the complete reversion of Nazism is good enough, i.e. mad science and suicide). The secular liberals are the majority in this crowd, and it's highly interesting to see how they follow these "religious" dogmas, which are more important to them then their own life and the future of their children, as if there were an Atheist Heaven to come to; at least earthly life is of little importance to them (unless maybe egoistically for themselves as individuals).

Another aspect of this is how hyper-ideologists when they are against something always have to take it to the extreme and claim that the thing they disapprove of doesn't even exist.

Atheists are not content with merely stating that Jesus was not the son of God. Weak minds still feel emotionally insecure, better take it to the extreme and make the claim that Jesus didn't exist at all.

Criminals will claim that the crime they did was not such a bad thing after all, but at the same breath they will tell you that they didn't do it. Neo-Nazis will claim that the Holocaust was not such a bad thing after all, but weak minds still feel emotionally insecure, so at the same breath they will claim that it never happened, too.

This quote of Fjordman exposes the same mentality: "American novelist Susan Sontag even stated that “The white race is the cancer of human history.” I am told that I am evil specifically because of my race, and five minutes later I’m told that race doesn’t matter."

But weak minds still feel emotionally insecure. "Race doesn't matter" is not strong enough, better taking it all the way to the extreme and spinning it as races do not exist.

I don't know why you need to argue, guys. After all, different races do produce different cultures.

It seems you haven't followed the discussion. The view expressed by you here is just what ZY finds "far beyond distasteful". However, from my point of view, if moderate opinions such as yours (one that I share myself) had been prevailing, I'd find little reason to argue with the occasional crackpots. But as you might have noticed, extremism is the norm.

We can define race broadly as a large group of people having common appearance and common culture.

Social concepts can only be defined broadly; it's in their nature. But what you talk about here is ethnicity. Race refers to appearance and/or genes. I generally find ethnicity a more useful concept, but as I already explained, there's a reason for why Fjordman had to bring up race; the all-encompassing Left put it in the middle of the agenda, with their in-your-face attitude.

Very true CS. It is as if they are all trying to get the nomination to run for the office of Jesus Christ. One of the worst offenders(as far as media darlings go) who really gets under my skin is "Bono". I am surprised he hasnt walked on water yet. Sorry to drag a "celebrity" into this thread but I couldnt resist.

to conservative swede"all-encompassing Left put it in the middle of the agenda"

Unfortunately, I am not quite sure that it is only Left. The Right wants to assimilate muslims. But isn't islamization exactly that - assimilating muslims? I started to believe that it is not Right or Left, but Empire. No empire, starting from Rome, cared about the atnicity of its citizens. So either we have national state or empire. Interestingly, in Russia this concept has been discussed long ago, probably because Russia has long been an empire. But in America and Europe, which are becoming empires too, those problems were not discussed yet, as far as I know.

You wrote:to conservative swede"all-encompassing Left put it in the middle of the agenda"

Unfortunately, I am not quite sure that it is only Left. The Right wants to assimilate muslims. But isn't islamization exactly that - assimilating muslims?

But this is also exactly my point when I write "the all-encompassing Left", the Right is included in that. So we are completely in agreement here. The whole thing with Left and Right in politics is just a theater, and nothing but a good cop bad coop routine; the Right being the good cop, but luring you into the same place as the bad cop. Left and Right, the two arms on the same dysfunctional body, taking turns in effectuating the civilizational destruction.

I started to believe that it is not Right or Left, but Empire. No empire, starting from Rome, cared about the ethnicity of its citizens.

It's true that for the Roman empire, the ethnicity of its citizens became less important than the state as such. But I consider this the good example, and the moderate opposition to the extremist racialism of both the culturalist and the racist camps. And is furthermore the historical reason for why you and I have a common civilization at all.

But more importantly, your generalization here about empires is incorrect. Islam is also an empire, and unlike the Western Christian empire, the God of their empire is of Arabic nationality. When the universalist God of Islam conquers the world, it's that Arabic tribe leader and the Arabic lifestyle that goes global. While in the case of Western Christian civilization The God is foreign, and therefore became ethnically anonymous in practice, and this is precisely why the decay of our civilization, which we are now witnessing, was bound to happen.

Unlike Islam, Rome didn't put primitive jingoism at the center of their imperial identity, but nevertheless it was strongly based on Roman heritage and Rome as the ideal, and therefore much stronger than our self-dissolving Western Christian civilization. When the Roman empire fell it left behind a world of Roman values for millenia to come. When the Western Christian empire falls, what will be left in its place is Islam.

Russian imperialism is somewhere between Rome and Islam.

So it's only our Western Christian empire that fits your description. And even that was not always like that, not under the Brits in the 19th century. But it was inherent in the concept of Christianity, and therefore bound to happen. Now America is in the imperial position of our empire. America, the quintessential empire-in-denial, and without any national identity.

This is the time to leave this concept. You are right about that. In this specific context, empire must be resisted and, quite as you suggested, nationalism and separatism of the people be promoted. And we do not need an empire to fight Islam. Islam is best resisted locally. The empire is what makes us lose.

That's also not absolutely true. But you are right - every empire imposes some principles and does not care about anything else. For Khalifat it is principles of Islam, for Rome probably it was the god-like nature of imperor, for christian empire it was christianity, and for modern liberal empires it is... The main principle is probably is that nothing matters. That's our motto and that's our main principle - nothing matters. But it also does not mean that the empire does not care about power and growth, it does, as any empire. Anybody can be a citizen, and the good citizen is one who does not care. The less you care the better.

Conservative Swede says:QUOTE: When the Roman empire fell it left behind a world of Roman values for millenia to come. When the Western Christian empire falls, what will be left in its place is Islam.

A very interesting exanple of Conservative Swede's anti-Christian bias...

The merit of what was good about the Roman empire being preserved, goes to the Romans and not to those (in this case the Christians), who chose to preserve what was good, when they could have very well abandoned it.

The Christians instead will not be so talented in their post-mortem efforts.

Okay, let me see if I understand how this works: I am a wealthy man. I kick the bucket and leave an inheritance. My heirs can either squander it or add to it.

One would imagine that all the merit or demerit would go to the heirs.

But apparently when Christianity is involved, this simple logic doesn't work.

The Romans lost to the Christians but the Christians kept what was good of Rome... Merit of the Romans.

The Christians will (apparently) lose to the Muslims... and the Muslims will ignore what was good of Christianity... Demerit of Christians.

I'm not anti-Christian. I have my own roots in Christianity. And my aim is to save as much as possible of our way of life.

The merit of what was good about the Roman empire being preserved, goes to the Romans and not to those (in this case the Christians), who chose to preserve what was good, when they could have very well abandoned it.

It took both of course. Muslims couldn't preserve Roman values in Northern Africa, didn't want to and didn't. However, the Westerners who preserved the Roman values, didn't think "We are Christians who preserve Roman values", they were Romans as well as Christians. The result of the Roman empire was to make all people, of what was then Europe, into cultural Romans, and as the result of late events in the empire, they became Christians along with that. So your idea that "the Romans lost to the Christians" is of course ridiculous, but all in line with your confrontational black-and-white view upon things (which is also reflected in how I'm described as having an "anti-Christian bias").

So being culturally Roman and Christian were the same thing at the time when the "decision" was taken to preserve our Roman values. Nevertheless, from an analytical point of view, our Western civilization is best understood seen as consisting of different components: Roman, Christian, Greek, Pagan. And during time the Roman side got weaker, and the Christian stronger with us. Especially since WWI. Today the consciousness of our Roman values have essentially been lost. And we have a purified version of Christianity, very ill suited for defense of our ethnic future. While our empire is lead by a country, America, that is in denial about being an empire, while lacking any national identity; to whom the very idea of national identity is alien. It's a very bad situation.

So your counterargument is beside the issue, and does in no way change my initial point:"When the Roman empire fell it left behind a world of Roman values for millenia to come. When the Western Christian empire falls, what will be left in its place is Islam."

My point is how relatively empty of content Christianity is. It's very flexible; it can adapt either Roman values or dhimmitude. And the historical records show two clear examples of this: Western Europe and Northern Africa. And as Northern Africa shows, dhimmitude leads to extinction in the longer run.

"When the Western Christian empire falls, what will be left in its place is Islam." The only anti-Christian bias that merits this statement is the anti-Christian bias of Islam.

CS: [QUOTE]I'm not anti-Christian. I have my own roots in Christianity. And my aim is to save as much as possible of our way of life.

Where one has his roots is not nearly important as the fruits one produces. It doesn't make much sense to boast of ones roots. It is like me, living in Italy boasting of the Trevi Fountain or of the Medicis and the Renaissance. The merit is not mine regarding the roots, all that is mine is the duty of preservation and ameleoration of the plant.

[QUOTE]It took both of course. Muslims couldn't preserve Roman values in Northern Africa, didn't want to and didn't. However, the Westerners who preserved the Roman values, didn't think "We are Christians who preserve Roman values", they were Romans as well as Christians.

It doesn't take both. The Christians, whatever they were thinking or not thinking, did not choose / were not brought to destroy ALL their heritage, the Muslims instead did.

They called what came before them the "Age of Ignorance" whereas the Church called it the "Clasical Age." Not only was the inheritance not squandered, but huge battles were fought to keep some shred of orthodoxy against all the many heresies that soon presented themselves. For awhile most of the power elite was Arian.

When a new faith comes into town (perhaps from the fringes of an empire) what happens is anyones guess. In time, the people might end up venerating cows, or they might see all effort as in vain or they might give undue importances to worldly success.

When Christianity (that thing "relatively devoid of content") came along, she did away with many old practices, but though even time itself was eventually measured differently, i.e. from the birth of her Prophet, she did not blankly reject all that came before her. Nor -more importantly - was she so devoid of content (as you aver) to avoid fighting heterodoxy. Content was important enough for terrific struggles.

[QUOTE] The result of the Roman Empire was to make all people, of what was then Europe, into cultural Romans, and as the result of late events in the empire, they became Christians along with that.

This is over-simplification. Through proselytization the Christians "conquered" territories far beyond the broadest expanse of the old Roman empire. They converted huge tracts of purely pagan territory. They were not just running on Roman steam, but quite obviously had a brio of their own.

[QUOTE] So your idea that "the Romans lost to the Christians" is of course ridiculous, but all in line with your confrontational black-and-white view upon things (which is also reflected in how I'm described as having an "anti-Christian bias").

It is not ridiculous. The Roman empire did not Christianize Europe, Christians at first a persecuted minority group, Christianized Europe in the Empire (and beyond). They set up a parallel power structure (bishops and the clergy) to the extant Roman power structure (of Consuls and suchlike) and when Rome lost her political reach and fragmented into Kingdoms, that alternative organization survived. The merit belongs to the Church and not to the Romans.

But let's skip to the latter part of your post.

You say:

[QUOTE]My point is how relatively empty of content Christianity is.

How this tallies with how you premised your post boggles the imagination:

[QUOTE] "I'm not anti-Christian. I have my own roots in Christianity. And my aim is to save as much as possible of our way of life."

You wish to preserve your roots which are relatively empty of content? Your aim is to save as much as possible of our way of life... the prime root of which is something relatively empty of content?

I may be black and white, but I'm afraid that by your own words, you are a blindman wandering aimlessly through a pea soup fog.

You say:

[QUOTE] It [Christianity] is very flexible; it can adapt either Roman values or dhimmitude.

Though perhaps not immediately obvious, this too is indicative of an anti-Christian bias.

There are Dhimmies and dhimmies, dear Conservative Swede. The first are the real Dhimmies: Christians overwhelmed, conquered, and yet in the face of overweening force, degrading oppression, not to mention Islam's penchant for occasional slaughtering frenzies, stubbornly clinging to their ways... and the second are those who are unconquered, living in relatively free countries but driven by a set of new universalist ideals quite different from Christianity, ideals that have fought Christianity and ideologically, are utterly hostile to her, not even surrendering (which would at least presuppose some sort of struggle), but simply no longer caring about culture, race, heritage.

What am I saying? Culture, race, heritage are fluctuating things. One should care about them, but they're not really where the action is. I wish to preserve my Culture, but as I am no admirer of stagnation, "preserve" means leaving it open to change, but guaranteeing that such change has a flow that is a seamless continuance, and as far as possible, a betterment of what came before it. It's either this way or we doom ourselves to become like the Amish.

The real issue, the real "sin" of the new universalist ideal system that has fought Christianity and made "God Dead" on the cover of Time Magazine, is the demise of morality and the rise of amoral Utilitarianism and Libertarianism. Moral abulia - and correspondent worship of content-less freedom, in every aspect, from personal to political and social.

When decisions are moral and not based on amoral "John Lennon "Imagine-all-the-people" ideals of freedom or egalitarianism, then Culture, race, heritage will play out properly and not even need to be defended. There will be crosses to bear, but not new Utopias or New Men to be shaped.

The atheist/rationalist/secular barbarians are the ones empty of content, not the Christians.

And it is quite wrongminded to call them "Dhimmies" when the real McCoys, the real Dhimmies instead, on more thoughtful observation, are rather heroic, stubborn and courageous. Your contempt for the first batch is misplaced. It should perhaps be pity and solidarity instead of batching them together with the Ken Livingston sort of scum who would sell their own mothers down the river to make a fast buck.

So, though I don't wish to be forced into Dhimmitude, viva the real Dhimmies! In the face of loss and defeat, they cling to civilization And "a muerte" the fake dhimmies... who see nothing at all good enough to cling to, inasmuch as "good" for them is a quaint old concept.

They are world's apart. And it takes an anti-Christian bias not to appreciate the difference.

But I gather that this is black and white thinking... and that you are wiser and more perceptive to just say "Dhimmies," and to give credit to how legacies and inheritances are handled not to the heirs but to the deceased, and to wish to preserve your contentless roots.

I didn't bother to read even half of your tirade. You go in for this like if it had been about cheering for Lazio in a homegame. According to you, first I'm anti-Christian, and then I'm "boosting" of my Christian roots... *sigh*. You are simply a Christian chauvinist, with your "the Romans lost to the Christians", etc. It's futile to try to discuss Christianity facing the zeal that you emit. This is a complex matter, and in the course of the discussion we will use Christianity/Christian in at least 3-4 different senses. But with your format of preference, supporter chants, all these different nuances get lost. I prefer having this discussion with Fjordman and people like him.

2. Proud of your roots and then saying that those roots are devoid of content.

3. The Church apparently a system devoid of content, yet historically capable of fighting heterodixy. Would the Chruch have struggled against the Arians, Alibgensi etc. if there was no content? If she were so accomodating?

4. Your wrong use of the term Dhimmie. Just contempt without really understanding the two different categories: the real Dhimmies and the PC Dhummies.Worlds apart.

Four valid points, certainly worthy of consideration. You see that as Lazio type fanaticism... in other words you don't have an answer.

As you are on an anti-Christian campaign, I don't see why a defense of the church should be automatically pooh-poohed. All the more so when the real problem afflicting the age is Amorality, a way of thinking beyond good and evil... towards a utopian plan... which is anything but Catholic but quite the opposite.

BYW the way I describe Christianity coming out of the Roman Empire is based on my readings of Belloc. Yours is just off-the-top-of-your-head glorification of the Romans. I said the church created parallel structures to those of the Roman Empire and they are what held a semblance of Romaness in the Western World, after the political clout of the Romans' failed.

As for Fjordman's flirtation with Jared Taylor type racialism... it is very interesting, but requires more perceptive thought than the kind - I'm afraid - you are capable of.

True enough THAT is what deserves answering and not your anti-historical, contradictory, wildman assertions.

When I talked about the lack of content of Christianity, I was referring to its lack of ethnic content. This has been the context of the discussion between me and Ypp all from the start. Something IF never noticed and therefore got completely wrong (while making a very big thing out of it), precisely since he never took any interest in the actual discussion whatsoever.

IF is not here at all to participate in any discussion, but to bring up old grudges he has with me. Since my blogposts back in June with criticism of the Catholic Church and Vatican II, IF as a devout Catholic freaked out (and you can read his comments under the nick Steven in my blog).

There are a couple of people who have this kind of allergic overreaction to me since I started blogging. IF is one, Lawrence Auster is another. This are the moments when you are glad that these exchanges take place over the Internet, and that you never need to meet these people.

It [Christianity] is very flexible; it can adapt either Roman values or dhimmitude.

Which is another way of saying it does not have much of anything of its own to STICK UP FOR (to fight about). As for the "ethnic" content, what you say is true. The church is not much into race. She will preach the same fundamentals in Copenhagen as in Botswana. This does not sanction either racialism or forced desegregation.

[QUOTE]IF is not here at all to participate in any discussion, but to bring up old grudges he has with me.

This is silly. I didn't carry grudges, I carried arguments. The fact that you mistake contrary arguments for grudges is a sorry state of affairs.

[QUOTE]Since my blogposts back in June with criticism of the Catholic Church and Vatican II, IF as a devout Catholic freaked out (and you can read his comments under the nick Steven in my blog).

By all means link to them. Freaked out? Moi? I was personally invited to participate on your worthy blog. I found ideas contrary to mine and I expressed them. I also followed many interesting links from your blog... To American Renaissance and Gates of Vienna for instance. The fact that I gravitated to your name here is undeniably a continuation of previous debates. But I fail to see what's wrong with that.

There is no need to descend into the realm of low-budget psycho-analyses and ulterior motives.

[QUOTE]There are a couple of people who have this kind of allergic overreaction to me since I started blogging. IF is one, Lawrence Auster is another. This are the moments when you are glad that these exchanges take place over the Internet, and that you never need to meet these people.

I fail to see where I overreacted as I fail to see how it is in any way about you as opposed to the ideas you carry. If I were a religious zealot, you would have had Bible quotes and perhaps warnings of the end of time. I reasoned with all the necessary detachment proper to a forum if ideas.

Again, take your consideration:

It [Christianity] is very flexible; it can adapt either Roman values or dhimmitude.

Will you agree that the insult "Dhimmie" is bandied about too easily? That it is patently WRONG to call the likes of Ken Livingston or the idiots of the Storting or those running most of the western universities "Dhimmies" ?

Is this overreacting or making a point, rarely addressed and worthy of consideration?

The fact that Christianity can survive in terrifically hostile environments is to her credit and should not be confused with the cultural suicide of those (still) in power.

Deal with it, Conservative Swede. It might not be the "ethnic" content that I missed, but it is not the pusilinamity that you suggest it is by juxtaposing it to Roman manliness. It is courage, stubborn attachment, it is going the distance and not relinquishment.

You consider it "flexibility"... and perhaps it is, but the alternative is snapping: either becoming a Muslim or getting the hell out. Call it what you will, but I refuse to confuse heroic fortitude with weakness.

Zionist Younger: "The Japanese are a hard-working, disciplined people" and "The Arabs are lethargic and corrupt", to the extent they are true, are not the result of genetics, but of cultural upbringing.

"The question really is, could you train him to be an upstanding citizen of a modern European state, like Sweden."

The question has already been answered, in the affirmative, by multitudes of fine, upstanding Hindu citizens of Britain. ...the Muslims have a disincentive, in the form of the doctrines of their religion, against accommodating themselves to their host cultures. Race has nothing to do with it, except in the indirect sense that Leftists are perpetuating race-hatred through their "anti-"/"reverse"-racist fanaticism.

That human behaviors are due to nurture alone is patently untrue as I already explained in my first post about Fjordman's "White Masochism" essay. Human behaviors are a product of nature AND nurture. You can't leave out either one when discussing human natures and behavior.

Zionist Younger works under the assumption that all groups of humans are the same, only our cultures differ -- therefore, he thinks that offering up as an example the fairly successful integration of Hindus into Britain demonstrates that the same should be possible for Muslims, if they'd only give up their strong attachment to their religion.

The problem with Zionist Younger's argument is that all groups of humans are not the same [link]. Yes -- we're all human -- before anyone says it, no one is sub-human. But, Hindus from India are decidedly not the same as Muslims from India or neighboring Pakistan or any other country.

One major way that they are genetically different (and there are likely others) is in the genetic relatedness between the members of the two groups. Hindus in India have very low levels of cousin-marriage (0.1 - 8.6%; the Hindus of Karnataka in the South are unusual at 33.5%). Quite conversely, Muslim groups in India have very high levels of cousin-marriage (13.9 - 46.1%) [link]. The overall rate for Pakistan is +50% [link].

...people who share a greater number of genes in common will be more altruistic to each other than people who share a lesser number of genes.

The members of a Pakistani Muslim family who have inbred with each other for generations will be much more altruistic and much more loyal toward each other than the members of the average British family who have not married their cousins for generations. Conversely, inbred Pakistani Muslim populations will be much less likely to be altruistic toward non-family members or the broader society.

Muslims didn't ruin the Balkans(not the ones during the 90s). It was just tensions that built up between all groups due to political(and yes a little religious reasons, but it was all the religions, not just one) turmoil. If you wanna talk about who ruined it, if anything it was the christians(since they started the war by attacking other christians/catholics first and then attacked muslims) but even then I disagree. Now that is if you're talking about the Balkans during the 90s. However, if you're talking about the Ottoman empire invasion in the Balkans, then I could agree with you

From the founding of Satanic Islam by Mohammed until now, 1,400 years of Muslim oppression has taught us that the Muslims are never the 'victims' of aggression unless Muslims or their henchmen have already threatened or caused grievous initial harm.

"Julia Gorin, author, pundit, and comedian has been studying and writing about this issue for some time. She commented years ago that the next wave of Jihadist Muslims would be "White al Qaeda" from Bosnia Whether or not this proves to be true, we had a great opportunity to hear this fascinating speaker defend her point of view."

"Kosovo, Albania, Bosnia, Serbia, Croatia, Yugoslavia – the whole Balkans goulash. Do you know the differences among them? We’ve all heard that the Serbians were the villains in the Balkan wars, but is it true?"

• Do you think the case against ethnic cleansing has been made against only the Serbs?• Do you know that the largest ethnic cleansing of the entire Balkan war was committed in a savage attack by Croatia against the Serbs who had inhabited one of its regions (Krajina) for 500 years?• Are you aware that the historical links to the pro-Hitler Grand Mufti of Jerusalem are still echoed today through pro-Nazi groups in Croatia?• Do you realize that a number of "Palestinians" are actually Bosnians who fled Europe after WWII's "final solution" didn't succeed?• Is the naming of an independent Kosovo a compassionate and just idea, or the creation of another, perhaps aggressive, Muslim state in Europe?